Unless I’m confused, which is quite possible, the reference was not to fishing expeditions but to inability to search data for which they have a legitimate warrant.
I don’t disagree with most of what you say, but I don’t know of any major push to giving “the government ...blanket authority to search the contents of our belongings, digital or otherwise.”
The government, again as I understand it, is recording and storing data that it cannot later search without a warrant.
I don’t particularly like that idea, but it’s not “searching the contents without a warrant.” Assuming they always bother to get one.
I think I get what you’re saying.
But the problem is that they are still seizing our data without a warrant.
If this were 1950 the analogy would be- the government can come make copies of your papers and store them in a vault. Later, if needed, they could get a warrant to read the letters. I completely disagree with that type of Fourth Amendment analysis.
It’s just the digital nature of our constitutionally protected information that makes it easy for them to copy and store.
Basically I’m saying the medium (digital) shouldn’t change the constitutional analysis.
There is a lot of remove for debate on this issue, but I have big problems with mass surveillance and storage. They don’t follow the laws (let alone the constitution)
anyway, so reigning them in will take dramatic steps and measures.
> “ inability to search data for which they have a legitimate warrant.”
Our 5th amendment guarantees that you can’t be compelled to testify against yourself.
Giving them the key to unlock your encrypted data is being compelled to testify against yourself.
How many DemRATs have invoked their 5th amendment rights?
DO I need to repost my epic post, so you have a clear an unmistakable understanding of what they gather...currently and without a warrant???